Why Atheists Can't Take the Bible Seriously
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-10-2013, 09:52 PM
RE: Why Atheists Can't Take the Bible Seriously
'NOPE.

But thanks for playing.'

Oops, better take that one up with the dictionary for that http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apologetics.

'Yes, yes. That's nice.

So why didn't any person anywhere ever make the slightest note of the dead rising from their graves and cruising around Jerusalem for a while?

There's something here that actually doesn't answer anything...'

Well, he was hardly 'cruising aruond Jerusalem.' He appeared to his followers, not in public. Hence the whole 'doubting Thomas' incident. And saying it that way reminds me of an athiest cartoon of a 'zombie Jesus.' It wasn't quite that way, and it shouldn't ake me laugh, but it does Blush

'So... you recognize Paul's flaws? Okay. And?'

I didn't recognise any particular flaws, but I'm going to be completely honest and say that for a few years of study I couldn't figure him out. Even the believers in Jerusalem didn't quite know what to think until they finally got together with him to talk it out. But hypothetically even if I disagreed with some of his advice to those churches and even if I acknowledge that his teachings have been wrongly interpreted through history, I can still recognise that if you analyse the texts he doesn't deserve the really bad labelling he gets today. Admitting he wasn't as bad as what you'd like to think of him as doesn't mean you have to give up your athiest card, it shows you can think about the text rather than just judge it.


'A text cannot be both timeless and a product of its times.

If one keeps asking questions the religious answer eventually boils down to never you mind. Which is not particularly compelling...'


Shakespeare? Aristotle? Anti- Slavery literature? For out American friends... The Delaration of Independance? Look at what texts have become cornerstones for people's political, cultural, social and spiritual beliefs. They can be both.

And I hope 'never you mind' will never be my answer. Is this the answer to expect if I keep asking questions of athiests?

....and I messed up the little quote box thingies. Sorry
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 10:01 PM
RE: Why Atheists Can't Take the Bible Seriously
And if you call the pentatuch mythology, the whole christian theology falls apart. Without a literal Adam & Eve and the concept of original sin, there's no need for Jesus' redemption. If the cross is unnecessary, then all of Paul's letters are delusional rants that, like Rev said, mix Eastern mystery cult with Jewish folklore. The historicity and evident pseudoepigraphy of bible text is the weakest part of christian apologetics, and one of the principal reasons I left the church.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 10:16 PM
RE: Why Atheists Can't Take the Bible Seriously
(16-10-2013 10:01 PM)Chopdoc Wrote:  And if you call the pentatuch mythology, the whole christian theology falls apart. Without a literal Adam & Eve and the concept of original sin, there's no need for Jesus' redemption. If the cross is unnecessary, then all of Paul's letters are delusional rants that, like Rev said, mix Eastern mystery cult with Jewish folklore. The historicity and evident pseudoepigraphy of bible text is the weakest part of christian apologetics, and one of the principal reasons I left the church.
Ever notice how by eating from the tree of knowledge is like opening pandora's box? Think they could have been connected in some way? You see the box was forbidden never meant to be opened but when pandora did open all of life's miseries were unleashed and what was left inside the box was hope. I found that part to be kinda sweet actuallySmile

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 10:32 PM
RE: Why Atheists Can't Take the Bible Seriously
(16-10-2013 10:16 PM)grizzlysnake Wrote:  
(16-10-2013 10:01 PM)Chopdoc Wrote:  And if you call the pentatuch mythology, the whole christian theology falls apart. Without a literal Adam & Eve and the concept of original sin, there's no need for Jesus' redemption. If the cross is unnecessary, then all of Paul's letters are delusional rants that, like Rev said, mix Eastern mystery cult with Jewish folklore. The historicity and evident pseudoepigraphy of bible text is the weakest part of christian apologetics, and one of the principal reasons I left the church.
Ever notice how by eating from the tree of knowledge is like opening pandora's box? Think they could have been connected in some way? You see the box was forbidden never meant to be opened but when pandora did open all of life's miseries were unleashed and what was left inside the box was hope. I found that part to be kinda sweet actuallySmile

Not surprising the Hebrews never really had much in the way of creative/original thinking.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 10:44 PM
RE: Why Atheists Can't Take the Bible Seriously
(16-10-2013 10:32 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(16-10-2013 10:16 PM)grizzlysnake Wrote:  Ever notice how by eating from the tree of knowledge is like opening pandora's box? Think they could have been connected in some way? You see the box was forbidden never meant to be opened but when pandora did open all of life's miseries were unleashed and what was left inside the box was hope. I found that part to be kinda sweet actuallySmile

Not surprising the Hebrews never really had much in the way of creative/original thinking.
I just feel religion started out as mythologies that were never meant to be taken literally. You can find many parallels between myth and the cultures that created them. Allegory and metaphor is the way to go. Somehow it got corrupted and became their literal truth. I don't have solid proof, though really, think of the alternative. Do people really want that mess in their lives? I have to do more research.

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 10:44 PM
RE: Why Atheists Can't Take the Bible Seriously
(16-10-2013 10:32 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(16-10-2013 10:16 PM)grizzlysnake Wrote:  Ever notice how by eating from the tree of knowledge is like opening pandora's box? Think they could have been connected in some way? You see the box was forbidden never meant to be opened but when pandora did open all of life's miseries were unleashed and what was left inside the box was hope. I found that part to be kinda sweet actuallySmile

Not surprising the Hebrews never really had much in the way of creative/original thinking.

Syncretism (sp.?) is so much easier. We leave the heavyweight new/original theologies to L. Ron...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 12:39 PM
RE: Why Atheists Can't Take the Bible Seriously
(16-10-2013 09:13 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-10-2013 06:13 PM)Yasmin Wrote:  Apologetics is simply the rational defence of a theory or position.

NOPE.

But thanks for playing.

(16-10-2013 06:13 PM)Yasmin Wrote:  I’m not saying to ignore any perceived inconsistencies or contradictions- the complete opposite, in fact. What I am saying is that you can’t criticise something unless you understand what you’re talking about. A lot of atheists can probably parrot more Bible verses off the top of their head than Christians, but that means nothing if you don’t know what you’re talking about. Reading a text a couple of times and thinking ‘that’s stupid, that doesn’t sound right, how could that not be noticed elsewhere in the empire, it must be completely untrue’ actually doesn’t answer anything. It has to go further than that. That was the point I was making.

Yes, yes. That's nice.

So why didn't any person anywhere ever make the slightest note of the dead rising from their graves and cruising around Jerusalem for a while?

There's something here that actually doesn't answer anything...

(16-10-2013 06:13 PM)Yasmin Wrote:  Which makes me smile whenever I read people’s rants about Paul. Although I’ve never thought of him in the language you all use, I struggled with him myself for a long time. But then I grew up, took a step back and decided to try and understand before I concluded. I think what you should say (and what I’d actually agree with) is that much of the misogyny found in many Christian denominations for many years can be traced to misogynistic and bigoted interpretations of Paul. A lot of what is spouted here about Paul is completely different to how we see and apply Paul’s teachings today. If you want to discredit today’s Christianity, may I suggest you keep up with the times. After all, you would never think of judging the credibility of science as a whole based only on how people mistakenly used to think the world worked, or the few lone crazy people floating around today, would we?

So... you recognize Paul's flaws? Okay. And?

(16-10-2013 06:13 PM)Yasmin Wrote:  Long post, I’m sorry. But I wanted to thank Heretic for putting up that book. I read some of it (as much as I could get out of Google Books anyway) and was actually pretty interested. Just a few thoughts though:
- I liked how he acknowledged different interpretation through history
- I like how he acknowledged different ways it’s interpreted today
- He raised good questions, especially about the nature of God, free will and hell, but he didn’t really take them anywhere
- The questions he raised were actually ones that have been discussed for years in the Church and things that we don’t really mind admitting that we struggle with- at least they’re being debated
- He focused a bit too much on Catholic interpretations- forgot that some of the positions have now changed and that he was making blanket assumptions about Christianity without making many comparisons with other positions
- Plus I though he was more literal in his reading than a Bible-belt fundamentalist. He was reading the text of an ancient population with 21st century eyes. Didn’t actually address how the culture of the time read it before seeing how we apply it today.
Overall though it’s a great talking point. Any more books to recommend?

A text cannot be both timeless and a product of its times.

If one keeps asking questions the religious answer eventually boils down to never you mind. Which is not particularly compelling...

Sorry, but:

1) Writers DID take note of the dead being in Jerusalem as the living and appearing to many people -- accounts of these happenings are in ALL four gospel accounts

2) Other than the gospels, were you looking for Twitter feeds? Facebook posts?

3) Other than my little joke giving us a boundary for the paucity of ancient writings, and ancient writings that survived (for all you know, there were fifty such accounts burned at Alexandria) - the Romans were crucifying Jews in the thousands and for not being good polytheists and not adoring the emperor, so any Roman writing to praise Jesus the Jew for being a resurrecting God would be the only Bible writer we can think of who wrote knowing in advance he would be persecuted.

It's just a silly argument overall and I'm tired of hearing it on this forum.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 12:54 PM (This post was last modified: 17-10-2013 02:46 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why Atheists Can't Take the Bible Seriously
(17-10-2013 12:39 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(16-10-2013 09:13 PM)cjlr Wrote:  NOPE.

But thanks for playing.


Yes, yes. That's nice.

So why didn't any person anywhere ever make the slightest note of the dead rising from their graves and cruising around Jerusalem for a while?

There's something here that actually doesn't answer anything...


So... you recognize Paul's flaws? Okay. And?


A text cannot be both timeless and a product of its times.

If one keeps asking questions the religious answer eventually boils down to never you mind. Which is not particularly compelling...

Sorry, but:

1) Writers DID take note of the dead being in Jerusalem as the living and appearing to many people -- accounts of these happenings are in ALL four gospel accounts

2) Other than the gospels, were you looking for Twitter feeds? Facebook posts?

3) Other than my little joke giving us a boundary for the paucity of ancient writings, and ancient writings that survived (for all you know, there were fifty such accounts burned at Alexandria) - the Romans were crucifying Jews in the thousands and for not being good polytheists and not adoring the emperor, so any Roman writing to praise Jesus the Jew for being a resurrecting God would be the only Bible writer we can think of who wrote knowing in advance he would be persecuted.

It's just a silly argument overall and I'm tired of hearing it on this forum.

You seem to be rather unfamiliar with you Babble. There is no mention of anything of the sort in Mark, or Luke. or John.
You aren't fibbing now, are you to make your cult appear have more credibility than it actually does ?
The original Mark didn't even have a resurrection. It ended with the empty tomb.

Why if Jebus was actually predicting the future, did he say "You will be handed over to the synagogues and to prisons, and led before KINGS, and governors".
If he was REALLY predicting, he might have mentioned "presidents", "dictators", "policemen", and "judges". Completely, utterly LOCAL, and subsumed in that time and place, and culture. He obviously knew nothing, anyone else did not know.

Then why is there NO evidence apart from testimonies of faith, (self admitted ONLY "good news"), (worth zip as history), about all the zombies in the zombie invasion ? There is no external evidence of dead men walking in Jerusalem. None. That would have been such an astounding event, Philo, or Pilate's secretary, (who both wrote of all kinds of other less important things), would have mentioned something. Even Peter in Acts, in front of the authorities, does not appeal to that bullshit, or that it was known, generally or to anyone. Why was it never appealed to, by anyone as a reason to believe ? Why not ? Because it's crap. Where did they Go ? Did they re-bury themselves ? Why did not one authority, either Jewish or Roman go looking for him, or attempt to locate someone who was important enough to interrupt their Passover weekend ? Why did no Jewish historian record the fact that for the only time in Jewish history, the Sanhedrin was called into session on Passover weekend ? Cuz he never existed, and it was all made-up bullshit? If all the gospels were based on 1 mythological text, 4 versions of a myth are still myth. They are in no way 4 "independent" texts. What happened to all their empty graves, and split rocks ? None ever ONCE examined, found, or talked about. And why did NO Jewish historian ever mention the torn temple curtain, a MONUMENTAL event in Judaism. If there were texts in Alexandria, then why didn't the desperate "Fathers" who would have given their right testicle for one such document, even mention one, once. You really are desperate. Maybe you should take up fiction pamphlets. You do have a knack for that. Tongue

If you're tired of hearing about the bullshit of your cult, feel free to leave. So far every word you've written here has only demonstrated two things. Desperation, and ignorance. (Well maybe three ... your posts are lame comedy).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
17-10-2013, 01:51 PM
RE: Why Atheists Can't Take the Bible Seriously
(16-10-2013 10:44 PM)grizzlysnake Wrote:  
(16-10-2013 10:32 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Not surprising the Hebrews never really had much in the way of creative/original thinking.
I just feel religion started out as mythologies that were never meant to be taken literally. You can find many parallels between myth and the cultures that created them. Allegory and metaphor is the way to go. Somehow it got corrupted and became their literal truth. I don't have solid proof, though really, think of the alternative. Do people really want that mess in their lives? I have to do more research.

Water World
What I remember of that movie:

"Sacred Words" were read from preserved phone books (or seed catalogues - sorry, I didn't really pay much attention)
Every one wore sweaters

Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 07:04 PM
Why Atheists Can't Take the Bible Seriously
(17-10-2013 12:39 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(16-10-2013 09:13 PM)cjlr Wrote:  NOPE.

But thanks for playing.


Yes, yes. That's nice.

So why didn't any person anywhere ever make the slightest note of the dead rising from their graves and cruising around Jerusalem for a while?

There's something here that actually doesn't answer anything...


So... you recognize Paul's flaws? Okay. And?


A text cannot be both timeless and a product of its times.

If one keeps asking questions the religious answer eventually boils down to never you mind. Which is not particularly compelling...

Sorry, but:

1) Writers DID take note of the dead being in Jerusalem as the living and appearing to many people -- accounts of these happenings are in ALL four gospel accounts

2) Other than the gospels, were you looking for Twitter feeds? Facebook posts?

3) Other than my little joke giving us a boundary for the paucity of ancient writings, and ancient writings that survived (for all you know, there were fifty such accounts burned at Alexandria) - the Romans were crucifying Jews in the thousands and for not being good polytheists and not adoring the emperor, so any Roman writing to praise Jesus the Jew for being a resurrecting God would be the only Bible writer we can think of who wrote knowing in advance he would be persecuted.

It's just a silly argument overall and I'm tired of hearing it on this forum.

1. The gospel writers were not writing history.
2. I'm looking for historians of that time period. None mention Jesus.

"Laissez nous faire!"

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor will I ever ask another man to live for mine."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: